Democracy compromised by Canada’s voting system

In the wake of Monday’s by-elections, and in particular the result in Calgary Centre, a great many people have expressed their concern about the problem of “vote-splitting.” I can see why. After all, were it not for the split in the anti-Liberal vote, the Liberal candidate would never have managed to finish second.

Similarly, it was only the split in the anti-Green vote that allowed the Green candidate to slip into third place. And don’t get me started on Victoria, where rampant vote-splitting among the anti-New Democrats handed victory to the party that 63 per cent of those voting voted against. Clearly it is time to unite the non-Liberal, non-Green, and non-NDP forces: a broad coalition of the antis.

Well, no. You don’t actually vote against a party. When you mark your ballot, you vote for the party of your choice. The people who voted for the Liberal, Green, and NDP candidates in Calgary Centre did not vote against the Conservative candidate, nor did they vote for some coalition of “the left.” They voted for the parties they voted for.

When people talk about a party winning because the vote was split, all they really mean is: that party got the most votes. The vote was “split” against all the parties in Calgary Centre, as it is in every riding at every election. It’s just that the Conservative candidate got the most votes. The same applies to the last general election. The other parties may wish to frame the issue in terms of vote splitting. But if any of them had got the most votes that’s the last you’d hear about it.

The vote-splitting idée fixe is especially obnoxious when presented, not as an observation, a quirk of the electoral system, but as something one party does to another. When Liberals accuse Greens of splitting the vote in Calgary Centre, thus sabotaging their chances of victory, they are implying, even if they do not say it, that the Green Party took votes that rightfully belonged to them. I say those votes do not belong to either party. They belong to the people who cast them.

If vote-splitting is a delusion, the solution most commonly proposed to it, merger or coalition, can hardly be less so. You cannot simply add together the votes cast for two parties, and expect the same number to be cast for a third party made up of the first two, merely because it is not a fourth party. A certain number of voters, offered the choice of the merged party and the party they were presumed to have voted against, will revise their preferences.

Thus the primary beneficiary of a merger or coalition of the parties of the “left” would be the Conservatives. A great many voters, particularly in the Liberal party but also among the Greens and NDP, do not regard themselves as being on the left. Whatever it is that causes them to vote for these parties, it does not fit into such crude ideological pigeonholes. If forced to choose between the merged party and the Conservatives, some might very well vote Conservative.

I’m sure it’s galling to the opposition that the Conservatives were able to win Calgary Centre with just 37 per cent of the vote. But it is just as galling, surely, that the NDP won Victoria with the same percentage — galling, not to the parties, but to democratic principle. It is galling that a candidate who wins 37 per cent of the vote in a riding is awarded 100 per cent of the seat, as it is galling that a party that wins 37 per cent of the vote overall in our system can win 100 per cent of the power.

But the fault does not lie with the Liberals, or the Greens, and it certainly doesn’t lie with the voters. The problem, that is, is not vote-splitting. The problem is the system.

It is only under the current “first past the post” voting system that vote-splitting is even notionally an issue. Where first past the post is winner take all, in a proportional system seats, and power, are allocated more in line with the number of votes a party receives. To hold a majority of the seats, you have to win a majority of the votes. And since it is rare for one party to do so, majorities are most often assembled from several parties. In effect, their votes are added together, rather than split.

There are a lot of reasons to prefer proportional representation — I’ve written about it often — but for the opposition parties there is one reason in particular: the current system heavily favours the Conservatives, as the party with the support of the largest single block of voters. So while I don’t see the case for merging the other parties, I do think there’s some merit in a proposal floated by the Liberal leadership candidate Joyce Murray: namely, a one-time-only electoral pact, for the sole purpose of changing the voting system.

The Green Party has proposed something similar. And Nathan Cullen famously ran for NDP leader on an electoral cooperation platform. The details no doubt vary, but here’s how I can see it working. The opposition parties would agree on a single candidate to put up against the Conservatives in each riding. Were they to win a majority, they would pledge to govern just long enough to implement electoral reform: a year, two at most. Then fresh elections would be called under the new system, with each party once again running under its own flag, with a full slate of candidates.

Supporters of each party, therefore, would not have to give up their allegiance. Neither, for that matter, would reform-minded Conservatives. They could vote for the reform ticket this one time, then return to the Tory fold when it came to deciding who should represent them in a reformed Parliament.

Worth considering, no? Otherwise we’re going to have a lot more election nights like the last one.

A National Post original, Andrew Coyne's journalism career has also included positions with Maclean's, the Globe and Mail and the Southam newspaper chain. In addition, he has contributed to a wide range... read more of other publications including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, National Review, Time and Saturday Night. Coyne is also a long-time member of the CBC’s popular At Issue panel on The National.View author's profile